Re: Issue on the SCTP draft

Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Mon, 24 November 2008 16:38 UTC

Message-Id: <MON.24.NOV.2008.113803.0500.>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:38:03 -0500
From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com>
Subject: Re: Issue on the SCTP draft
Comments: To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)

On 24 Nov 2008, at 11:14, Wang,Weiming wrote:

>
> BTW, although not very strictly related to your this question, I
> have to mention that, since last year, my research team seemed
> become hard to contribute to the WG, even if we'd actually like to.
> Firstly, my team's implementation is greatly affected and blocked by
> the current TML decision.


Is your teams  current TML documented and available for others to
review?  If so, perhaps we should consider making it  WG draft as
well.  Given SCTP's uptake to date, i would be very happy to see well
developed TML solutions using other protocols.


> Thirdly, now it seems most of the things on the WG are done by IETF
> meetings, rather than by the WG list.

I don't believe this is the case.  I have not been able to go to most
of the recent WG meetings as my research funding would not allow it
(though I did make it to the last meeting).    I have been
participating via the email list and have 'attended' the meeting
though audiocast and jabber.

I have never felt left out.  And while listening to the audiocast
sometimes meant being out of normal time, it was a lot easier then
flying.

I think that if you are interested in doing cooperative work with
others, they are more then wiling to do so with you.

a.